Question To KJV Only Advocates

Lacy,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

You said:
I don't. But neither does anyone else. There are no verses that say that the autographs were inspired either.

==I am glad to see that you have chosen to answer the question. Thanks. As for the idea that there are no verses that state the auographs were inspired...I would disagree (2Tim 3:16-17).
______________________________

You said:
All of us should base our beliefs on Scriptural principals and Biblical precedents, when no direct verse is there.

==I agree.
______________________________

You said:
1) The Bible promises us that the Word will be preserved. (Psalm 12v6-7)

==I agree. History also agrees and, for about 1600 years, there were many faithful translations prior to 1611 and King James I's authorized translation.
_______________________________

You said:
3) The Bible gives us a definition of inspired "Scripture" which pertains exclusively (at least in context) to copies and trranslations. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

==How does 2Tim 3:16-17 apply only to copies and translations. I have no doubt that it does apply to copies/translations but I would also say that it does not exclude the autographs.
___________________________________

You said:
4) The Bible gives us a clear way to look critically at any "prophet" who claims to speak the Word of God. (The same test can apply to inspired Scripture, the cannon, and the Christian revelation in general.)Matt 7:15-20
This "fruit test", IMHO, overwhelmingly proves the KJV to be inspire scripture.

==I agree with what you have labeled as the "fruit test". However I don't see how this "overwhelmingly proves" anything on this academic subject. One can recite fruit accounts that have resulted from most every faithful translation in history. How does this make the 1611 KJV better than the others? You will need to explain this point to me before I can really reply.

_____________________________________

I said:
I am not looking for a comparison between the KJV and other "modern" english translations. Such a comparison is faulty because it starts with the presupposition that the KJV is the only correct english translation. Thus such an argument is circular.

You replied:
It might be circular, but I will say this. It is the same method anyone uses when picking a version "preference". Nobody REALLY compares the NIV, NAS, etc. and the NWT, LB etc to the "originals" because there are no "originals". While I would never start an argument there, it certainly counts for circumstantial evidence.

==I would reject the superior claim of any translation based on such "circumstantial evidence". As for the original autographs...while it is true we do not have them (and probably for good reason...just look at the stain under the bridge a few weeks ago...people would worship these objects). However, thanks to textual criticism we can be morally certain that around 98% of our modern texts is just as the original autographs.

"Nevertheless, our ability to reconstruct what the originals looked like is exceedingly high. The contents of 97-99 percent of the text are certain beyond any reasonable doubt - far better than for any other documents of the same age." -Dr Craig Blomberg, "Jesus and the Gospels" pg 75.

I use Blomberg because he represents the general agreement among New Testament scholars. This view, as expressed by Blomberg, is generally accepted by scholars of all backgrounds.

So God has preserved His Word. However there is no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that the KJV is "the preserved" English translation. Mainly when we consider the fact that some modern translations do a better job translating certain greek terms (etc).
________________________________

I said:
I am not looking for someone to tell me that it is the "authorized version" since, historically, that has nothing to do with the claimed superior nature of the translation.

You said:
Indeed, this is the same argument that ALL fundamental Christians use when defending our 66 book cannon. There is no Scripture that says, "Thou shalt not regard The Gospel of Peter, etc. as scripture but shalt regard Song of Soloman so."
We base it on History and fruit. We base it on the fact that historically the church has "authorized" those and only those 66 books.

==It was King James I of England (head of the Anglican Church) that authorized the 1611 version. Which, btw, included the "Catholic" Apocrypha. So the "authorized version" of 1611 had more than 66 books in it. That is what I meant by, "historically, that has nothing to do with the claimed superior nature of the translation". I see no reason to accept the idea that King James I, who as far as I can tell was not a Christian, should have been the voice of the church. This is only doubled when I consider that the 1611 version of King James I contained the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha has been rejected as uninspired by the majority of Christians throughout history (and rightly so).

____________________________________

I said:
I am not looking for spurious arguments about how everyone who translated the NIV was "evil" or how the NKJV translators are out to "fool people with their false perversion of the KJV text". Such arguments are wrong because many of the textual scholars who worked on these translations are Godly Christians who, like Martin Luther, wanted a English Bible in the modern language.

You said:
While I respectly disagree with most of that, I would not make it an issue.

==Ok, but I must say I think it is a major issue. Have you read the works of Gail Riplinger? How about "New Age Bible Versions"? The accusations she makes in that book are not only false (for the most part) they represent a gross misunderstanding of textual studies and of those who have been involved.
____________________________________

You said:
My main argument is the absolutly overwhelming preponderance of the fruit of the KJV when compared to all other translations in history.

==Thats fine. However I must say again that other translations can claim the same. The difference maybe that some are not as old as the 1611 KJV, but given time they will be and they will gather more. God preserves His Word. All of the major English translations are good (NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc). I am a bit weary of the NIV and the NLT and I am openly hostile to "The Message" (a popular paraphrase). Those feelings are based on the level of faithfulness to the greek texts (NT). However if we examine the major faithful translations (faithful to the greek) we see large, large agreement. No signficant disagreements whatsoever. So on a textual level I see no reason to believe in the superior nature of the KJV translation. Also, added to that, is the fact that at points the KJV is weak on translation. I know that is not popular but I even hear KJV preachers say something like.."now let me explain what that word is in the greek" and thus admitting that the KJV is not a perfect translation of the greek. All of the translations have weaknesses and all of them have strengths, but of the major I would say that none are better than the other. I would take the NKJV, the KJV, the NASB anyday and not prefer one over the other. They all faithfully preserve God's message.
______________________________

You said:
Is there a Biblical precedent for preservation by atrophy?, for "going to the originals"?, for multiple choice exegesis?

==What do you mean by "multiple choice exegesis"?

The original language is what it was written in. To say that we can ignore or set that aside is not facing the facts. The fact is that the KJV translators, along with the NASB and NKJV translators, had to work with the greek/hebrew texts (and the Latin translations at times). All of what we have comes from that. If it were not for these manuscripts there would be no english Bible today.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

You said:
This is a prejudiced and silly question. Scripture does not address this point either way. So, one can neither prove nor disprove the superiority or inferiority of the KJV by Scripture alone.

==I agree in part. I agree that one cannot prove the superiority of the KJV via Scripture. However I would never say the KJV is "inferior" in any way. It is one of several faithful english translations.
__________________________________

You said:
Let's ask the question of a related but similar issue. How can you establish the canon of Scripture by Scripture alone? We do not have every book claiming inspiration for itself. There has been some debate over the canonicity of certain books. Esther does not refer to God even though we can see His working. Luther, for example, thought James should not be included in the NT. Early compilations included or left out certain books. Although I think it is a spurious issue, certain scholars have raised the question of other canonical books in recent times.

==Luther is a interesting case on this because I think, from reading his preface to his New Testament and to Romans, he agreed with the Epistle of James. But, I guess that is water under the bridge for Luther.

______________________________________

You said:
it is a thoughtless question because it presupposes that one must be able to prove the KJV superior via Scripture alone.

==The question was meant to prove a point and to get an answer. The point? Those who claim that the KJV is the "superior english translation" have no basis for their claim. Why not? First they certainly have no basis for their claim when comparing the KJV translation to other "modern" translations. All have translation strengths and weaknesses. Second, and this is where the question focused, they have no claim Biblically. Their claim is, at the end of the day, based on personal preference and nothing more.

_________________________________


You said:
One may equally well ask: “Can you provide any version is the Word of God by Scripture alone.” This is not the case and it is absurd to engage in trying to answer this predisposed question.

==The answer to your question is yes. Examine what the OT says about itself, what Jesus and Paul said about the OT. What Peter said about Paul, etc. So Scripture does make claims about its own inspiration.
__________________________________

Martin.

 

Lacy,

You said:
Those verses say that scripture is inspired. the same "scripture" that Timothy's mother read to him as a child.

==Ok, I see your point.
______________________________

You said:
My turn to agree. The key is your term "faithful". It is a relative term. In 2 Chronicals 4, King Josiah acted on "faithful" revelation when he broke down the groves and altars. He acted on very "faithful" revelation when he ordered the House of God restored. But when the Book of The Lord was found in the rubble, the revelation went from "faithful" to "perfect". "Faithful" bore fruit. "Perfect" caused revival to break out on an exponentially larger scale. I believe something similar happened when another king acted on "faithful" revelation.

I believe that God can get it close. (Dry bones, all put back together, with flesh and sinews and skin.) and then God can get it perfect by breathing into it.

==I agree with all of that, 100%. However when it comes to the KJV translation, and comparing it to the various manuscripts, we don't see a perfect translation. Unless, of course, one starts out with the presupposition that the KJV is a perfect translation and that it therefore is above the greek. I can't go along with that.
_______________________________

You said:
I will challenge you to apply any biblical standard of what constitutes "good fruit" (souls won, personal holiness, saltiness, new (restored) revelation, advance in doctrine, missionary activity, infuence of local churches on society, etc.) to a comparative look at the 1700s and 1800s and any other 200 year period in history. The fruit of the KJv is just as evident as the fruit of the close cannon.

==Are those things a direct fruit of the KJV or of other factors? In other words can those things be directly tied to the KJV (as being fruit of it)? If so, how?

_______________________________________

You said:
But that 2% is what the whole KJVO controversy is about. It puts the Final Authority in the hands of a select few who can sell us their views.

==Even if one elects to prefer the KJV over other translations, that does not do away with the 2% that is uncertain. That just, in a way, ignores the issue. Granted that is fine for most and for me personally, but from an academic stand point that will not do. We have to study to become morally certain of that last 2% and I believe that by the grace of God we can. God preserves His Word and has done so throughout history. Despite the many who would have burned every copy they could get their hands on, God has preserved His Word. Today, that 2% or so that we are uncertain about, affects 0% Bible doctrine/truth.
____________________________________

You said:
My point is, the Autographs were never meant to be the final authority. God never regarded them above any other scripture. (See "original" 10 Commandments, Ex 34:1,27 & Jeremiah's autographs, versions 1,2,&3 Jere 36)

==So what is the final authority here? The KJV that appear some 1,550 years after the texts were written? What about those thousands of years?
____________________________________

You said:
Many claim that the term "Authorized Version" was not coined until 1814. (200 years later) Which would be what one would expect on a farm. You don't know which crop is good for feed and which is good for seed until you see it growing.

==No doubt the KJV is a good translation. That is not the issue I am raising.
__________________________

You said:
Yes or no brother. Honestly. Did the KJV translators, King James himself, any fundamental preachers at the time, or anybody at all, regard the Apocrypha as scripture?

==The Catholic Church did but, if I recall my history correctly, the Anglican Church did not. So I must admit it is a bit of a mystery to me why a version that comes from Anglicans had the Apocrypha in it. Unless it was some sort of compromise.
____________________________________

You said:
Did anyone believe that the 1611 KJV had more than 66 books of in it? I think the "acocrypha" argument is very misleading.

==Why? If someone there did not view it as Scripture why put in there? Seems a bit odd.
______________________________________

You said:
I have read just about every major work on the subject.
Sister Ripplinger (or for that matter, Ruckman)is not as bad as she is amde out to be here on the BB. Spit out the seeds.

==I am sure Riplinger is a nice lady but her works are horrible. The one I am most familiar with, "New Age Bible Versions", contains historical errors and a general misunderstanding about textual issues. I don't think she is an evil woman...she is just wrong on this issue.
__________________________________

You said:
All may be "good". All may be "faithful". I have no argument with those statements? If I was on an island with only an NIV, I'd praise God. But I would pray for deliverance so I could eventually check all my NIV verses with the KJV.

==Ok. How do you know that the KJV is the best translation of the texts without examining them (comparing KJV to the texts)? Why compare the NIV to the KJV? Rather I would suggest compare both to the greek/hebrew texts (manuscripts). Sure they are all copies but at least the greek texts is in the same form that Paul (etc) wrote. If we are going to say one set of copies is above all others, for the reason just cited, the greek copies are far superior to all english copies. Without the greek manuscripts (etc) we have no idea what Paul (etc) wrote. The KJV is just as dependent upon greek as the NIV.
__________________________________

You said:
Then why do so many preachers "go to the Greek"? And refer to KJV translations as "unhappy"? Why are there so many arguments on the BB which come down to "well that's a bad translation"?

==The KJV is not a bad translation, but it is not a perfect translation (I say that about all english translations). We have to refer to the greek for that very reason...no english translation is perfect.
__________________________________

You said:
That preacher would be, by definition, KJV preferred, not KJV only.

==That maybe so. However I can't count the number of preachers I have heard who, with thunder, proclaim "if you are not reading the KJV, you are not reading Scripture" (or something along those lines...) .
_______________________________________

You said:
This KJV preacher (me) hasn't cracked a Strongs (Other than to investigate a transliterated Greek word) since 1986 when he was in Bible school.

==Then how do you know the KJV is a better translation than the NASB? If you are not comparing what are you going on?
___________________________________________


You said:
I mean that so many preachers today, perhaps unhappy with the plain,and proven English text, go to a Greek dictionary or another version and find a definition or a translation that they "prefer". (I like the Phillips because it says blah blah blah.)

==That maybe true with some. However I think most are searching for what that greek term means. The meaning of words is a interesting thing. In greek alot of times there are no direct english words. Going to the greek can give us a better understanding of the text. There is no "one-for-one" english translation of the greek. Therefore we have to know the greek to get a better understanding of the text.
________________________________

You said:
Fair enough. But God is not bound by language. The Greek "scriptures" were inspired in Timothy's day, although originally written in Hebrew. No NT writer ever says, "Now the original Hebrew" said such and such. No NT preacher ever corrected their Greek OT withe "the Hebrew". God knows English as well as he knows any other language.

==They understood the importance of the Hebrew (being the original). There is clear evidence of that. Just because they did not handle it the way we do means little.

How do you know the KJV is the superior translation apart from a detailed study of the greek texts?

Martin.

 

This will be quick because I have to run, however I could not resist answering your reply.

You said:
It is also a presupposition that any particular extant Greek version is "above" the KJV when it comes to reliability.

==That is different. With the King James you are dealing with a english translation of greek texts and there is no such thing as one-for-one between the two languages. That is one reason there are so many english translations. The greek texts are much, much older than the KJV and thus closer to the originals. Also the greek text(s) are in the original tongue, the KJV is not.
_______________________________________

You said:
There is no such thing as "the Greek", if you mean one Greek Final Authority. Anyone I have ever met who holds to your view can find as big a percentage of "errors" in any particular Greek Bible extant as they find in English versions.

==The "errors" in the greek manuscripts are really moral uncertainty not errors. In other words we are dealing with minor issues of spelling, word order, etc. For the most part these play no important role in the text and only make up about 2% of the text. Thus we are morally certain about 98% of the text. This moral certainty has come from a study of these various texts (etc). The KJV is not, and cannot be, seperated from these studies. To do so, or even to attempt to do so, reflects a gross misunderstanding of textual studies and issues.
____________________________________

You said:
It's really not as hard to see as all that. It almost seems like God went out of his way to erase all subjectivity. For about 300 years, one Bible dominated the greater portion of Christianity. What was the fruit in the church of that time period? How does it compare to any other equal time period?

==That is a highly subjective argument. The KJV was the major english translation during those times. That does not mean that the events that occured in that time were due to the KJV. You have not proven your case. What about the translations (not English of course) that were around in during the days of Luther, Calvin, and others? Why don't you say those are superior?

______________________________________________

You said:
Study what? Equally imperfect Greek versions? I have seen much more fruit from studying the KJV and comparing Scripture with "Scripture". It is no accident that I have a Biblical Precedent for doing so. There is no Biblical precedent for studying dead languages. (I am not opposed to it but no Biblical precedent}

==See above about the texts. As for there being no Biblical precedent, I strongly disagree. The Bible tells us to do what? STUDY! That involves bringing in all the possible information. Not only that our english Bibles, including the KJV, is a product of these very same textual studies. So when you condemn textual studies as without Biblical precedent, you condemn the KJV. Why? Because it, like all translations, is the result of textual studies.
_______________________________________

You said:
Where was the saviour for 4000 years? Where was the Jewish "Final Authority" prior to the completion and assembly of the OT? God introduces new things, allows them to die and be buried, then raises them back up.

==So you are saying that it took God until 1611 to get the New Testament right after having finished it before ad90?

________________________________________
I said:
Ok. How do you know that the KJV is the best translation of the texts without examining them (comparing KJV to the texts)? Why compare the NIV to the KJV? Rather I would suggest compare both to the greek/hebrew texts (manuscripts).

You said:
Which Greek and why?

==That is a dodge. How can you rightly claim that the KJV is the correct translation if you deny textual studies?

________________________________________

You said:
But is that the Biblical reason for saying one set of copies is above all others?

==What is the Biblical reason for saying a 1611 english translation is above the greek?

_______________________________

I said:
Without the greek manuscripts (etc) we have no idea what Paul (etc) wrote. The KJV is just as dependent upon greek as the NIV.

You said:
Of course we do. We have English, Latin, Spanish, Chinese, and it just keeps on going.

==Where do you think those translations came from? Greek manuscripts.
___________________________________

You said:
OK! What if no Greek translation is perfect? Then what?

==Considering that the greek we use today is 98% as the originals, and considering that the 2% that is uncertain contains no major problems, I think that is not a issue. That is one reason I am not saying the KJV is a bad translation. What I am saying is that there is not textual/Biblical reason for saying it is superior to all english translations. It is not perfect (1. because it is a translation from the greek and there is no such thing as a one-for-one greek to english translation, 2. the KJV will reflect at least the 2% textual variants as will the others).
_________________________


You said:
I really don't think God is interested in "one-for-one" translation. that's not even good translation technique. I daresay that no great "insight" has been discovered by careful study of imperfect Greek manuscripts that would not have been equally gained by diligent study of the English KJV.

==That, I am sorry, represents a gross misunderstanding of the textual issues. The fact that there is no one-for-one translation means that there will always be variants in the english translations. That is a fact you can't avoid. Also many a "great insights" have been found by studying the greek. In fact we could say that one such insight was the KJV Bible, the NASB, the NKJV, etc. Again without the textual studies we have nothing.
________________________________

You said:
Name a Greek manuscript. What fruit does it have in comparison to the KJV?

==Well we can talk about the the various translations that have come from these texts (including but not limited to the KJV).

Martin.